Posted
by
BeauHDon Wednesday March 16, 2016 @07:45PM
from the scrutiny-from-both-sides dept.

According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick B. Garland as the nation's 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appeals court judge for the lifetime appointment and daring Republican senators to refuse consideration of a jurist who is highly regarded throughout Washington. Like Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Garland comes from the powerful D.C. Circuit court. The president said Judge Garland is "widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence. The qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle." Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong." Mr. Obama demanded a fair hearing for Judge Garland and said that refusing to even consider his nomination would provoke "an endless cycle of more tit for tat" that would undermine the democratic process for years to come. Merrick B. Garland will serve in the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas.

I think it is a really smart move. He will say to them: "this is as conservative as you're going to get". Because "do you think Clinton/Sanders will give you some more conservative?" The Cruz or Trump will probably go down with disastrous losses. But it is not guaranteed. So Obama gives them an moderately attractive candidate, and if they refuse, then the next candidate will be less conservative.

Here's the thing. The nominee has to be approved by a majority of the Senate (and contrary to the rhetoric I've been hearing, every Supreme Court Nominee rejected by the Senate [wikipedia.org] in the last 100 years has been a Republican nominee; so it's the Democrats who haven't been shy about shooting down nominations).

The Republicans hold a 4 seat majority in the Senate. The Senators up for re-election this year came in during the Tea Party wave in 2010 - Obama's first mid-term election. Consequently, a disproportionate number of them are Republicans. There are 24 Republicans up for re-election and only 10 Democrats. They Republicans need to win 21 of 34 seats to keep the Senate.

Right now, 13 of those Republican seats are considered safe, 4 are likely to be re-elected. That's 17. 3 are leaning Republican which would only get them up to 20. And there are 3 toss-ups. So there's a very real possibility the Democrats could take the Senate, or we have a 50/50 split with the tie-breaking vote cast by the Vice President (which right now is more likely to be a Democrat).

As we get later in the year, if the polls begin to clarify the Senate and Presidential races going in the Democrats' favor, expect a change of heart from the Republican leadership. They will take a centrist justice over a hard-left liberal nominated by a Democrat President and approved by a Democrat senate.

Not really all that clever. The Republicans boxed Obama into a corner - everyone knew a very liberal justice like Sotomayor or Kagan.to be dismissed immediately. The best he could hope for was to name a centrist.

I think the Republicans should take it as a victory and confirm the guy. They're certainly not going to get a better nomination out of Trump or Clinton. Cruz would pick someone who respects the Constitution but he may not get the nomination. We have to keep trying though.,

Who in the SCOTUS does not respect the constitution? Does the current nominee disrespect the constitution? Specific please (unless we are just looking to settle for simple minded slogans.)

You mean Robert Bork of the Saturday Night Massacre [wikipedia.org]? Firing Nixon's prosecutor in exchange for a seat on the Supreme Court? Wow, you and I have different ideas about what "eminantly qualified" means.

Just because you think "watergate: bad" and therefore conclude "Bork: bad" because he did something related to it, that just does not make it so.

So, you think that quashing an investigation of the president for a promise of a spot on the Supreme Court is cool and is covered by "very good well-thought-out constitutional reasons". That's fine, I just don't agree with you.

Hint: He did not order the break-in, nor did he know about it in advance. What he DID do was enough to get even the Republicans to help the Democrats remove him from office (a decision that was proper to my way of thinking). Nixon gained NOTHING from the break-in and did not stand to gain anything from it.

As far as I can tell, Nixon didn't know about it in advance (though since his appointees and allies planned it, I'm not sure that lets him off scot-free). But he certainly did all he could to quash the investigation, including bribing Bork to fire the special prosecutor. Was it stu

Were these laws constitutional? If they were, and the Democrats Congress thought it was they would have challenged it and brought it to the Supreme Court for a decision. Since the Congress did not challenge Reagan their attorneys reviewing the case probably told them that the case wouldn't stand up to judicial review.

Really? Congress did not challenge Reagan [wikipedia.org]? I mean, aside from the many hearings and the indicted (and convicted) folks whom Reagan and Bush pardoned?

I mean, it literally took me 15 seconds to type into Google and prove you wrong. I'm not sure if you are the same person as the AC I replied to earlier, so I'll say the same thing. You are a partisan zealot, sir, who does not let evidence corrupt your pure conclusions. And when you wonder why governmental officials feel that they can lie to the voters witho

I mean President Obama's administration studied the keystone pipeline for 7 years before deciding that it is more environmentally friendly to haul crude oil in trucks and rail. I say the senate should do him the same favor and consider this appointment for at least a couple years before deciding he was not qualified.

I mean let's not be mean spirited about it. The Senate should consider him, and consider him some more. Then after that is all done why not consider him again. Let's consider the fuck out of him. Make him the most considered appointment never to get appointed.

The State Department handled that because the President never appoint an administrator for the Economic Regulatory Administration which would normally handle cross border pipelines. It took the State Department a while to get up to speed on regulatory issues.

I mean President Obama's administration studied the keystone pipeline for 7 years before deciding that it is more environmentally friendly to haul crude oil in trucks and rail. I say the senate should do him the same favor and consider this appointment for at least a couple years before deciding he was not qualified.

I mean let's not be mean spirited about it. The Senate should consider him, and consider him some more. Then after that is all done why not consider him again. Let's consider the fuck out of him. Make him the most considered appointment never to get appointed.

It is after all the Senate's constitutional duty.

Always amusing to see people cutting off the proverbial nose.

"Let's break the highest court in the nation for a few years just to make the point that we don't like Obama"

"widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence."

I don't want a Supreme Court Justice who is one of the "sharpest legal minds". I want one who's level of reading comprehension equals or exceeds that of a five-year-old. And make sure he's read the Constitution.

[...] respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle.

I want someone like Scalia or Thomas, willing to make unpopular decisions not because they want to, or because they think it is good policy, or because they think it will make the country richer, more compassionate, kinder, gentler, or happier, but because it's what the law says and it's their job to decide what the law is and not what's good for us.

If Obama was playing just for the election he'd nominate a liberal minority for the Republicans to reject (or ignore) and build up extra Democratic support among that minority.

And if he was going for legacy he'd nominate a younger liberal.

Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.

Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.

This has been the story of the last 8 years: Obama pre-compromises to Republican complaints without any assurances of cooperation whatsoever, and then the Republicans refuse to even accept their big win, like what they asked for all along has somehow been tainted with Obama cooties now.

That's why GP included the "take full legal responsibility" part as a condition. Excepting specific court-ordered emancipation, you're not allowed to legally be bound by contract until the age of 18, and cannot take full legal responsibility for yourself in civil matters.

Personally, I'd like to see the following conditions for voting:

* be at least 21 years old, unless you are an active-duty member of the US Military in which case you can vote as long as you are still on active-duty status (because if you to

True but in most states a 14 year old is still held legally responsible for their crimes.

If I had my wishlist for voting requirements it would be a basic understanding of government and a simple test to demonstrate that knowledge. These would be things that are taught in a basic 8th grade civics class and things that they should know if they have been conscious for the last few years like what are the 3 branches of government, what is the job of each branch, who is the current president, who are your cong

Question - what about those who are wards of the state? If you get your entire source(s) of income from government funds, why should you be allowed to have a voice in how that taxation is apportioned and levied?

I ask this because the temptation is all too real (and in the case of certain candidates, all too proven) for such folks to vote solely for the candidate who shouts 'panem et circensus!' the loudest.

I think they want to have the seats voted for like all the other positions. I'd be a colder day in hell before any sitting justice would allow that. I also think it is stupid as hell. Them not having to run for office and get to their positions by more merit than the elected officials, removes a lot of the pissing match in their branch that others have. Keep it that way.

The people elect representatives that would hopefully know better than them, so that the people can handle their own lives, and the elected people can focus on doing their end. Those elected people in turn elect justices, so we do get a say, just a derivative vote. If the person really wants to have a say in the matter, then they better as hell start sending letters and phone calls to their representative. If that person doesn't listen, then don't vote for them next time. If that person still stays in office, well your voice and those with your opinion aren't as important as the voices of others.

It would be an atrociously stupid idea anyway. That's why the founding fathers rejected it for the federal courts. Several states do have judges chosen with elections - and it's a disaster across the board.Good judges are rarely good campaigners - these are skillsets that require almost exactly opposite ways of thinking, and are very few people are good at both.Many a very good judge has lost his job to a horrifyingly bad one who was good at campaigning (and well-funded by some wealthy third-party who had a problem with the sitting judge, like an upcoming trial where they wanted a less tort-friendly judge perhaps).Many a terrible judge has had the job for years because they are running uncontested.

Sane legal systems throughout the world have the very senior judges appointed by the head of state, and all other positions appointed by other judges. Many systems have something like a judiciary council and judges who serve there vet and appoint judges to various courts to fill openings.

There is a great deal of sense in having candidates for an extremely specialist job like that of a judge vetted by people who are highly familiar with the field. It's the same reason programmers tend to prefer job interviews by people who are themselves (or at least used to be) programmers. What coder expects a fair assessment from somebody who can't understand half the words in your resume ? In the case of a judge, it's more like 75% of the words in there that make absolutely no sense to somebody who hasn't had the same training.

It would be an atrociously stupid idea anyway. That's why the founding fathers rejected it for the federal courts. Several states do have judges chosen with elections - and it's a disaster across the board.

Well, like it or not, the nomination process for SCOTUS is now highly politicized. It may not be an actual popular vote yet, but it gets closer and closer.

First we have the 17th amendment, which puts senators in more direct contact with a state's constituents. Thus, they no longer represent a state legislature's interest, but rather the "people" more directly.

Then we have the televising of nomination hearings, which have now become about senators pandering to the television audience, rather than vetti

The US Supreme Court ruled in Hurst v Florida (Jan 2016) that juries, not judges must determine a sentence of death. It is no longer legal in any jurisdiction of the US for a judge to sentence someone to death.

The nation wasn't designed to have senators directly elected by the people. The senators were supposed to represent the states. Thanks the the idiotic 17th amendment we now have basically two houses of Representatives with different constitutional duties. And the states have no representation. That's why the SC nomination process is so fucked up.

The nation wasn't designed to have senators directly elected by the people. The senators were supposed to represent the states. Thanks the the idiotic 17th amendment we now have basically two houses of Representatives with different constitutional duties. And the states have no representation. That's why the SC nomination process is so fucked up.

Instead of representing the states legislative majority which chose the senators prior to the 17th amendment they now represent the people of the state directly. I say that is how it should be in a representative democracy

The President nominates, with the advice AND consent of the Senate someone to be a justice. The Senate can then consent, not consent or decline to bring the matter to a vote. The Senate sets their rules and determines how Senate business is conducted. Those calling for hearings in order to fulfill constitutional duties are even more off-base; there were no hearings for Supreme Court justices before 1916.

The President and Congress are co-equal branches of the government. It's not too far fetched an argument that the voters knew exactly what they were doing when they gave the presidency to the Democrats and Congress to the Republicans. There might be perfectly rational reasons for the voters to impose forced cooperation or gridlock rather than a single party running away with their own interests.

There may be policy and political reasons that the Senate should act but there are no constitutional duties imposed on the Senate to act.

As a resident of North Carolina, we didn't give congress to the republican's, our say-so was ripped from our hands forcefully and given to the republicans against the will of the people of North Carolina due to gerrymandering.

With a 50/50 split in the popular vote, the seats are split 3/10 in favor of the republicans. The previous election, the democrats won the popular vote and the seats were split 4/9 in favor of the republicans.

At this point, the democrats stay home here many times rather than vote as their vote quite literally does not count. It would take about 80% of the popular vote for the democrats to get close to 50% of the seats.

We are a state that is red in name only as we are purple by voting method due to disenfranchised voters staying home and firmly blue by will of the people.

It's their duty to do their Job just like it's my duty to go to work tomorrow. Do I have to go to work tomorrow? Technically, no. I could even call in sick tomorrow and no one would ever know I was faking it and I would get to keep my job. Will I do that? No, it's my duty to go to work unless I really can't.

Likewise, sure, technically congress is acting within the rules by just not bringing the issue up for consideration but the fact is that it is their duty to particpate in this processes and by chosing not to do so they are neglecting their duty. In doing so they stunt one of our three main branches of government creating potentially destabilizing problems for it. What if this presidential election needs to go to the supreme court like the Bush/Gore race? What if the court ties? I realize there are contingencies for that happening but do you think it would go well going with a lower courts call on such a massive issue?

The fact is they're threatening the stability of our government by stunting one of its three main branches just so they can possibly score a "win" if a Republican gets the presidency. Many senior Republicans in congress even have quotes from years past talking about how important it is not to let the court nomination process come to this.

I can make the case that it is their duty to represent their constituents interests in Congress. Most Republican congressmen have constituents that don't like the Presidents choices and haven't now for the last 8 years. They get to send people up to Washington D.C. to stymie his agenda which they feels threatens their way of life and their freedom. Most of the mayhem with Trump this election cycle is that the Republican voters are fed up with the way their representatives have knuckled under to the President's agenda and failed to avert the damage he's doing. Given that feeling it is the best interest of those representatives to not allow another non-conservative justice appointment. I can pretty much guarantee that if they do allow it there will be a lot of freshmen Republican Senators soon to follow. You might disagree with this and I'm okay with that. All I really care about is that my Senators not allow another liberal justice and I think they got my e-mails.

Stability? Are you kidding? You do realize that "advise and consent" != "rubber stamp," right? As well have read the history of GWB's nominations? The only thing different here is that people aren't used to Republicans actually exercising power.

Then the omission of 'advice and consent' is still advice and a lack of consent. Why is this hard to understand?

For the record, I think it's chickenshit political grandstanding, but I don't see why people are bringing a constitutional argument here. The Senate has fulfilled their duty the moment that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said that he won't hold hearings, and that the Majority Leader said there won't be a floor vote, as the Senate gets to s

As someone who spent a career in the Army handling and actively working to protect classified information (MOS 97B then 35L Counterintelligence Agent) I assure you it is most certainly NOT a molehill. She not only mishandled the emails, but on at least one occasion directed a subordinate to strip the markings from a document before emailing it to her. In other words she knew it was wrong and still wanted to get around it.You also don't realize how intertwined the intel communications systems are these day

As someone who did time in the military and has held security clearances for 2 different governments, I can 100% confirm this. If I had done what Hillary did, the very least that would happen would be my getting stripped of the security clearance and perp walked to the doors by security personnel with a very clear directive that I never come back and I will never work in a secure environment again. The unvarnished truth is that if I had been actively circumventing security procedures and knowingly exposing

You are right, the founders didn't require Congress to act. They didn't think they needed to for rather obvious reasons. There is also no constitutional obligation that the President defend the country or that congress people actually go to Washington or any other myriad things because they didn't think they needed to spell out explicitly that when someone was elected to congress or any other elected position that they were supposed to follow through on that job.

You might as well argue that because there is no obligation for the President to actually defend the US that it would be OK for him to let China invade and forbid the military to take action. Because quite frankly it's just as stupid. If the founders had wrote the Constitution to spell out every damn thing elected officials "were obligated" to do it would be a 500 page novel. Your argument is a straw man.

You keep forgetting about Article I, Section V which says in part: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

That's not just a "the founders didn't require Congress to act" statement, but a full on "the founders decided to give Congress the ability to act on what it chose to... deliberately" statement.

Given that the President is required to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed, a Chinese invasion likely would violate quite a few laws so yes... POTUS would be required to act... but then who would force his hand if he refused?

They're not ignoring their constitutional duties. It is in their set of powers to get to decide when to hold hearings or even *if* to hold hearings. The Constitution makes no reference to a time limit or timetable for getting these things done.

Now, I am *not* saying that it is the right thing to do, but it is a valid political decision. And by handing the advice and consent to the Senate, the authors quite consciously handed them discretion over that political choice. They certainly knew how to be specific if they wanted to be. They actually defined the crime of treason in the document, down to the number of eyewitnesses that were required. If they wanted the Senate to act in a certain time, they certainly could have written it in there.

Having said all of that, given that the next president is probably Clinton, and the second choices are Trump or Sanders, there is no freaking way the GOP is getting a better candidate out of the next president unless God smites all of them with individual bolts of lightning. I suppose they are pinning their hopes on Cruz now, who I admit is most likely to carry out a ritual sacrifice so he can resurrect Scalia and put him back on the bench. But, Cruz just isn't someone who is getting elected in a general campaign. He'd be lucky to get as close as Romney or McCain did.

So... they need to stop pretending that somehow the next president will magically be better than Obama. They should seriously take the practical victory that Obama gave them by not nominating an arch-liberal to the court and go with the moderate.

Absolutely. They can take a moderate now, or gamble on a big win in November.

Plan C, wait for the RNC and see who the candidate is. If Trump, they may as well go with Obama's nominee and learn to play ball. Trump will most likely lose to Hillary, and almost certainly lose to Sanders, then they will get a liberal or nothing at all. On the other hand, if Trump were to win, he's not really very conservative (based on the 30 years I've had to listen to his nonsense in NYC) so he'll likely pick either sameguy,

You really have to stop making excuses for the bad behavior of a party. I usually vote Democrat, but if they put forth an incompetent candidate I won't vote for him/her. You on the other hand would say "well the other party also has incompetent candidates at times".

This is exactly how we ended up in this mess. People started voting on the basis of political lines, instead of the actual facts, wherever they might lead you to.

How did you get from "refusing to address a supreme court nomination" to "not marching in lock step with the president?" It is typical to fill supreme court positions immediately, especially if there is an even number of justices.

So, OK - if the Republicans want to play it that way, they should just go ahead and reject the nominee - you know, have an actual vote. Of course, then they would be on record as voting against a qualified nominee just to be pissy toward the President, but then Obama could nominate someone else. This bullshit about the "Biden Rule" (which of course isn't really a rule at all) is just that. Oh, and what about the 82 judicial nominees (out if 168 in the entire freaking history of the country) that the Senate

Neither Obama, nor any recent president was elected by "the American people".

Only about 30% of the country voted for Obama. Given that voter turnout was less than 60% in both 2008 and 2012, the actual winning option was, "I don't trust either the red candidate or the blue candidate to represent me!"

Why should Congress feel obligated to represent the wishes of the 30% who asked for Obama, over the 70% who didn't?

Because the people who didn't opted not to have their voices count. One could make the same argument about Bush and pretty much almost every single fucking presidency since God knows when.

Hell, the same argument can be said about Congress since they were voted with the same low turn out. If the same low turn out can be used against Obama, then the same can be said for Senators. It's not like 30% voted for the president, but 100% voted for congress. You argument is bullshit. When you have to reach so far

The summary says: "Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas." I'm not one for conspiracy theories but, a more accurate description (as reported by the owner of the ranch) would be: "Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep with a pillow over his head while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas."

I'm sure that he regularly slept with a pillow over his head and it was all simply a misunderstanding. This can happen -- just like the guy who slept with a horse h

Sorry, no. You're wrong. Should be "Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep with a pillow over his head after sending away Secret Service officials while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas and was then denied a post-mortem on the grounds he had a heart condition."

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but barring a recently changed will, or an assumed identity, or a long-lost relative, or a lack of footprints going ze ozer way, this belongs in a Poirot novel.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but barring a recently changed will, or an assumed identity, or a long-lost relative, or a lack of footprints going ze ozer way, this belongs in a Poirot novel.

Scalia was killed by Colonel Mustard, in the library, with a bad manicotti.

You can go to CNN or Reddit but you won't get the same level of discussion

Exactly! I don't come here to read the news, but to read what Geeks and Nerds think of the news. I wouldn't mind if a story was posted about Kim Kardashian's butt. Someone would post that he is completing his Ph.D. in the theoretical geometry of feminine butts. Another would post that he is with a CSI unit as a Crackology expert.

Slashdot has an incredible wealth of expert knowledge . . . and I will read just about anything the folks here want to say about anything.

The Supreme Court could have a pretty large impact on technology, privacy, encryption, etc. It's one story on the front page about a huge political event that could affect technology significantly. You're welcome to scroll past it onto the other 30 specifically tech focused stories.

If we wanted to read about political shenanigans like those that this submission is about, we'd go to CNN, or Reddit, or some other non-Slashdot site.

When you say we, you're exaggerating your representation of the lot of us.

If I hear about something political or tragic, I look to this site for the most insightful discussion. Sure, sometimes that is not as instantaneous as the 24 hr media coverage, but I'm looking for balanced careful reflection and response.

This is a perfect example of a purely-political submission that should not have been promoted to the front page.
It doesn't even have a damn thing to do about technology, science, math, computing, software, or anything relating at all to what Slashdot submissions should be about.

The Supreme Court will making decisions that will shape our society for generations to come. The geek will not escape unscathed.

Growing up, you learn the rule "Two wrongs don't make a right." In politics, though, the rule is "If the opposing side does something you find repugnant, call them out on it... and then do that when you're in power... and then call them out on it again when they're back in power."

I guarantee that there are Republicans who were opposed to the Democrats doing this in 2007, who are in favor of doing the same thing now, and who will be against it again if the Democrats do the same thing down the line. (And vi

So if you are hitting on a girl on the bar, do you require her to affirmatively say "No, I am not interested" before you stop your pursuit? Or do you take her not looking at you and the drink thrown in your face as a sign of the same?

So Republicans are manning the shit-cannons against a judge they themselves admit is perfectly well-qualified for the position, a judge they themselves praised and recommended, and they can't even explain why they are doing it... and their irrational behavior is somehow Obama's fault. Doesn't Obama know only white presidents get to nominate supreme court justices?

It is appropriate to refer to a person in print in the first instance by their full title, but afterwards as Mr. or Ms. X.

Just like if you met Queen Elizabeth and had more than a few words with her, you'd start with "Your Majesty", but afterwards you'd just refer to her as "Ma'am". Trundling out the whole honorific is just a waste of print/breath after that point.

My uncle George was a Rhodes scholar, and his scholarship class got the traditional honor of taking tea with the Queen (the one who was later the Queen Mum). All the other guys said "Your Majesty" or "Your Highness" every time, but George got it right thanks to his wealthy and equally regal Southern grandmother who was "Grandmother" first and then "Ma'am".

Actually I know the answer to this one. The formal etiquette forms of address technically apply only to communications addressed to the person in question. You follow them if your are speaking or writing to that person. If you are writing about them you follow the rules prescribed by the publication's style guide, which are chosen for both clarity and to establish a consistent in-house feel.

For example, if you look at Associated Press articles on the current US president, the first reference in the article will use the president's full name ("President Barack Obama addressed the UN..."). Subsequent references to the president will simply use the president's last name ("Obama said...). The submitter uses the house style of the New York Times (and many other papers): First reference is "President Barack Obama" (or sometimes "President Obama") and subsequent references are to "Mr. Obama". This style only applies to news at the Times; opinion pieces sometimes affect different styles to show different levels of deference and formality.

You refer to him as President Obama the first time and Mr Obama after that, what's the problem?

That's standard editorial practice. The Economist style guide says that you provide the title once, and then it's Ms/r/rs So-and-so for the rest of the piece. In my newspaper, that's the way it works as well.

I know that last sentence was purely gratuitous. I just get a kick of out of saying, 'in my newspaper....':-)

The author of that article, chief legal counsel of the right-wing Judical Crisis Network, is basing her argument against Garland on two cases:

1. NRA v Reno

The Brady Bill directs the feds to run criminal background checks on would-be gun purchasers. To avoid a de-facto national gun registry, though, the checks need to be destroyed after the sale completes. They were originally destroyed immediately after the sale finalized, but Janet Reno changed the rules to retain the checks for 6 months, ostensibly for two reasons: to police the government (so that unauthorized checks against random non gun-purchasers by corrupt officials could be caught) and to guard against gun purchases made under stolen identities.

Garland’s opinion was that if the law required the records destroyed immediately, Congress would have specified a timeframe. Given the ambiguity of the law, had Garland imposed a timeframe on the government he would have been legislating from the bench. So his ruling was the conservative one. After the case, Congress always had the chance to specify a timeframe for destroying the checks but never did. When Ashcroft came in, he canceled the 6 month thing.

2. Heller v DC

This was a challenge to a DC handgun ban. First, a three-judge panel declared the ban illegal due to the 2nd Amendment, upending more than 200 years of jurisprudence. Given the weight of the ruling, Garland, along with three other judges including arch-conservative A. Raymond Randolph and uber-liberal David Tatel, voted for a rehearing with the entire DC circuit weighing in instead of just this 3 judge panel. In a 6-4 vote, a majority of the circuit decided to not rehear the case, and so the panel’s judgement stood. Garland never gave an opinion on the case, he only voted for the entire circuit to rehear it. So did Randolph, but the Judicial Crisis Network lawyer conveniently leaves out this fact. According to the JCN author, one of the three other justices was a liberal, Tatel, and that's all the proof she needs to brand Garland as an anti-gun nut.

So that’s the extent of all this chatter about the 2nd Amendment: how long the government is allowed to hold onto criminal background checks in the absence of clarity from Congress, and Garland's vote that the full circuit and not a 3-judge panel should hear a case with far-flung consequences. All the 2nd Amendment talk is nothing but hyperbole and spin, but what else would you expect from National Review?

BTW, uber-Republican Orrin Hatch advocated for a Garland nomination to the Supreme Court in 2010. Here's what he said just last week:

“The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

So even in the words of dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, Garland is a moderate.

Why is it here? Because the makeup of the court will have direct effect on us Nerds. Apple's case is likely to go to the Supreme Court. As some of the many cases dealing with IP, software and hardware patents and many more areas of interest to the Tech world.This is important to us Nerds, or should be. Because it will have direct influence on our interests and industries. Many direct influences and impacts on our interests. Even those outside the US are likely to see technology influenced by the rulin